Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4509 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The AFP, in addition to a number of other concerns, also highlighted a number of issues. I will not go through them all now, but they did raise some concerns about the choice of offences. I think it is important in a proposal like this that an offender has an opportunity to defend themselves in court, otherwise there is some danger that it could be used as a control mechanism or as a tool to deal with people hanging around Civic. The AFP acknowledge this and then say that an effective on-the-spot fine system will save police time and money only when offenders pay the fine without argument. I believe many people probably would, because there are certainly some benefits to offenders from paying the fine without obtaining a criminal record.

The AFP assert that the Bail Act also needs amendment in concordance with any proposals to introduce on-the-spot fines for criminal offences and their being given the ability to impose bail conditions on summary offenders. I am not convinced about this, but I would like to consider the issue further. The AFP seemed very displeased with this approach and that does raise questions about its implementation. They have indicated that, as it would not be popular among police - - -

Mr Moore: The AFP Association.

MS TUCKER: Okay. Mr Moore corrects me - the AFP Association. I am prepared to acknowledge that. They have indicated that it would not be popular among police, and it will rarely be used unless members are forced to do so by AFP guidelines or court rulings. In conclusion, while I believe that this proposal does have some merit, there are considerable dangers in the way it is currently drafted.

MR MOORE (8.27), in reply: I thank members for taking the trouble to go through the Bill so carefully and also to look at the various committee reports as well as responses to the legislation from people such as Jason Byrnes of the AFP Association. Clearly, they have also gone to a great deal of trouble to look at the Bill. I think the reason why so many people are looking at the legislation and are critical of it at the same time is that it does offer some hope of a slightly alternative method to improve the way we do our policing. On the other hand, clearly, there are problems.

It is not reasonable, I believe, to say we need to review it more or we need to look at it more. We have had an Assembly committee report that said, "In concept, this has some positive ideas, but we have some doubts in certain areas and it should be looked at by the Community Law Reform Committee". The Community Law Reform Committee has looked at it and said that conceptually this is a good idea but it should be used, certainly in the initial instance, in only two particular areas, as there are other problems.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the best method of dealing with this - I have been negotiating with other members of the Assembly - is to pass this Bill in principle and then look at the amendments that Mr Humphries and I have been negotiating. Thanks to Mr Humphries, I am able to circulate now amendments which have been drafted to make the Bill more acceptable to the Government. I hope they meet, and I am sure they will meet, quite a number of the concerns that Mr Wood raised, as well as concerns that have been raised by the AFPA and many others. I am very comfortable with the Bill.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .